First off, a quick "good to see you again" to leibling -- we missed you smile.gif I noticed a few posts by you last week but didn't have much board time and so didn't comment then.
I agree with what Leibling wrote, "Then, the cranked arabesque with the leg over the head but the upper body contorted and uncomfortable to look at- what is the point?" I'd say that goes for any ballet -- if you can't do it easily, don't do it. The same thing happened, one reads, when Fonteyn added the balances (with arms en couronne). Everybody tried to do them, most wobbled -- defeating the point. I read Fonteyn quoted as saying, "It must look as easy as stepping off a bus, or don't do them," and I think that goes for any "trick."
But specifically, for me, the 90 degree arabesque in "Sleeping Beauty" is part of the choreography. (I don't mind a higher arabesque in other ballets and Balanchine is a different matter.) I just got some beautiful pictures to run in DanceView (next issue, out in April) of Zakharova in Sleeping Beauty and I would not know, without a caption, that it was from "Sleeping Beauty." I can't fault the extension; it's beautiful, there's no strain, it suits her. But it's not Aurora. It's someone else up there, kicking to the heavens. (I feel the same about the 90-degree arabesque in Shades, but I freely admit that's because that's the way the Royal did it when I first saw Shades. The Kirov, for a long time, judging by photos, does a 110-degree arabesque. To me, it looks sloppy, because it causes the hip to be raised slightly and breaks the plane of the body. But I won't go to the mat on that one smile.gif )
90 degree arabesque
15 replies to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):